(1) Less than 100g (A) Hard & Formed (2) Between 100 – 200g (3) More than 200g A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 ‐ hard or firm texture ‐ retains a definite shape ‐ like a banana a cigar or marbles (B) Soft & Formed ‐ retains general shape ‐ like peanut butter (C) Loose & Unformed ‐ lacks a shape of its own ‐ may spread easily ‐ like porridge or thick milkshake (D) Liquid ‐ runny ‐ like water King’s Stool Chart © 2001 King’s College London www.kcl.ac.uk/stoolchart 0 cm Scale | 10 cm | | | | | | | | | | King’s Stool Chart © 2001 King’s College London www.kcl.ac.uk/stoolchart Instructions for use 1. First, consider the consistency of the stool by comparison with both the verbal and photographic descriptors (A, B, C, D). 2. Then, consider the weight of the stool by comparison with the photographic descriptors (1, 2, 3). Compare the size of the stool, using the life size 10 cm scale, and compare it to the 10 cm scale on each photographic descriptor. 3. Record the frequency of stool over a 24 hour period. 4. Any other characteristics of stool output that are considered to be important must also be recorded e.g. incontinence, colour etc. Sucu Dag G, Dicle A, Saka O, Whelan K. Assessment of the Turkish version of the King's Stool Chart for evaluating stool output and diarrhea among patients receiving enteral nutrition. Gastroenterology Nursing. 2015; 38: 218‐25. Whelan K, Judd PA, Preedy VR, Taylor MA. Covert assessment of concurrent and construct validity of a chart to characterize fecal output and diarrhea in patients receiving enteral nutrition. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2008; 32: 160‐168. Whelan K, Judd PA, Taylor MA. Assessment of faecal output in patients receiving enteral tube feeding: validation of a novel chart. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004; 58: 130‐137. Whelan K, Judd PA, Taylor MA. Defining and reporting diarrhoea during enteral tube feeding: do health professionals agree? Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 2003; 16: 21‐26.
© Copyright 2023 Paperzz